the safety risks posed by the workers. you have the ability to put all kinds of equipment in the tunnel because you do not have to move trains. at the same time. i have heard nothing to the effect that they are on schedule or over budget. indeed, in some of these tunnels, we are making it through our local resiliency funding to just allow them to move utilities to the roof of the tunnel, so should we have flooding again, we will not lose all of the signaling and cabling capacity. >> i want to thank the witnesses for your testimony today. this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] reminder the senate hearing and most of our programming available on our video library at www.c-span.org. news that david bidder of louisiana will run for governor of that state in 2015. ites the next gubernatorial election is november 15 one week before his term ends. should he lose, he could keep his seat and decide whether to seek reelection. they write that if he wins, he would have the right to appoint a successor to serve on the final year of his senate term. although the house and senate are out, pro forma sessions only today, snow in washington is canceling the federal government work today and also a number of events we had planned to cover for you. we did earlier cover a discussion looking at the security and politics of the

winter games in sochi, russia which kicks off february 7. a russian expert said no matter how secure the olympics are in russia it only takes one person and a bride to get past the. here is a look. heard a lot of discussion about this in the russian press in terms of the capacity of security services. they are essentially structured differently from the way that security services in the west are structured. their main goal is regime security, rather than public let's say. obviously, with a high profile, politically significant event like the olympics, those two things are connected. nevertheless, the goal of the security state that putin presides over and from which putin came, is directed more at influencing the regime from those outside rather than those securing the root public in

general. one of the challenges of that apparatus state in the context of the olympics is trying to make that pivot to do a more public security role because of the politically importance it has. i do not know about the capacity to do that. the second point i would emphasize here, something that we have not talked about, but something that is important in a lot of contexts related to the olympics, is corruption. russia -- inns in the lead up to the games, it has focused on this element, the amount of money that has been misappropriated, misplaced, gone into dodgy contracts and offshore bank accounts. by almost all accounts, these will be the most expensive olympic games ever. upwards of $50 billion. as much of a third of that may have been embezzled or stolen. what does this have to do with security? servicesally, security

can be supremely effective, but they are only in the macro sense, as effective as their weakest link. in a lot of cases, the weakest link is corruption. think about some of the successful attacks that have been carried out in russia over the last decade or so, one that is really striking is went to the view of female chechen suicide bombers blew up russian aircraft in 2007 or so. 2004. happened, washat these women bribed their way through security checkpoints. they bribed the guards at the airport to let them onto the plane, even though they had not gone through the proper procedures, they were not searched, and then they detonated suicide bombs when they were on board. up in aem can be set

way that is designed to focus on these kinds of threats, but it only takes one person, one corrupt guard who is willing to look the other way in exchange for a bribe of one kind or another, to have the entire thing, part 46 a full attack to be pulled off. that is one of the real unknowns, as we think about how secure the olympics will be. the entire event is available on our website any time at www.c-span.org. last week, federal communications commission tom wheeler reacted to the d c circuit court of appeals decision to strike down the fcc's net neutrality rules. income before the minority media telecommunications council, he vowed to continue fighting for an open internet. he spoke for 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, david.

very thoughtful. really happy to be here. too not know how i refer this distinguished group up here. colleagues, are these predecessor colleagues? over the years i have referred to them in a lot of different ways. sure -- it is great to be here and to be with this distinguished group of predecessors whose rather large footsteps i am proud to follow in. nice when yous said, particularly about our first vote. let's give credit where credit is due. when i showed up, you may have noticed, there was a little weight before i showed up.

up, there was the foreign ownership item sitting there ready to move because chairwoman clyburn had made that happen. [applause] i agree. what a job she did. all i did was get the glory to carry the ball over the line. she did the hard work to get it down to the goal line. in so many things that we have ,een able to do here, early on is picking up on the legacy that chairwoman clyburn left us. my first d.c. policy of parents. -- appearance. [applause] i was in a town meeting in oakland last week and i said to that there was method in my

madness, that i had not appeared before any groups in washington, had, that my first speech been out in ohio at the ohio state university. my second was in silicon valley, followed immediately by oakland, there. the actions out but if i am to break the mold and make a washington appearance, i could not think of a better place than here, so thank you very there much for ig me today. the struggle for minority participation in the media has --n long, hard road with euro it, and it has been right -- heroic, and it has been right.

what i want to do today is visit with you on how we can take those kinds of ideas to a new level. new, greatjoin in a campaign that celebrates the activities of the past, but identifies the opportunities of the future. i think we need to begin by being honest with each other. supreme court has made it very difficult for the government to take the wreck steps to create advantages on a specific group basis. the twins not removed voices, diversity, of and diversity of ownership. the challenge is how do we go after those goals?

the new environment we are existing in offers that opportunity. i believe the new opportunity campaign should focus on, yes, the opportunities created by our , ratherorked realities than refining the struggles of the past. outrageous that there ofno minority ownership television stations in america. but the interesting thing is, that that reality now exist in an environment where facilities ownership is less critical to diverse voices than ever before. just ask reed hastings, the c.e.o. of netflix if he needed to own distribution before he could produce "house of cards" or orange is the new black or

any of the other presentations video services that he's developed. or ask hulu who brokered deals with 11 different spanish language content partners. or ask michelle fawn who in 2012 launched her own multichannel u tube network focusing on fashion and beauty and has over 5 1/2 million subscribers today. or ask bob johnson whether he needed to own facilities to launch b.e.t. i was there when that happened. you could even ask some of the next generation of entrepreneurs who are in this audience.

the fact of the matter is that the opportunities that are before us all are a result of what i've been calling the fourth great network revolution. it's the greatest revolution in how we communicate amongst ourselves in the last 150 years. what we've learned from previous network revolutions is that change is hard, that new networks are disruptive forces, that encumbents will oppose the change in a bid for self- preservation but that by embracing change you can produce

successful results and those who embrace change become transformational forces. that's the new network opportunity that we have before us today. never in the life of anyone in this room has there been greater opportunity to exploit the new networks for ownership diversity and content diversity. and that is what makes the open internet so dam -- damn important. there has been a little flurry in the past few days on this topic so i thought maybe it would make sense to reflect on that. the reason why broadcast ownership was important in the past was baw it gave access to a highly controlled medium.

we will not let that kind of control take over the internet period. [applause] on tuesday the d.c. court of appeals issued a much anticipated decision in the open internet case. since it's been so talked about and is of such importance to the kind of goals we're talking about here for the diversity of ownership and the diversity of voices, please allow me to make a couple of observations. one, the court invited the commission to act and i intend to accept that invitation. using our authority we will

readdress the concepts in the open internet order as the court invited to encourage growth in invasion and enforce against abuse. we've noted with great interest the expressions from many internet service providers to the effect that they will continue to honor the open internet orders concepts even though they may have been remanded to the commission. that's the right and responsible thing to do and we take them up on their commitment. at the same time, we accept the court's invitation to revisit the structure of the rules that it vacated. the great revolution in the internet is how it empowers individuals to both consume and

create. it's the kind of opportunity that we're discussing here this morning. and to do so requires an accessible and open internet and we will fight to preserve that capability. [applause] we also recognize that investment and invasion in broad band networks are essential for the growth and expansion of the internet. but make no mistake about it, our job is to ensure growth and invasion through an open internet. it is a topic that should join the f.c.c. in common cause. now let me quickly touch on a couple of other topics. the lifeline program is an important component of

everyone's right to access our communications networks. the program has been abused. the outrage of that abuse is being addressed. but it doesn't change the underlying purpose. we are conducting broad band lifeline trials right now and we'll base policy decisions on those findings. but broadband is the future and access to broadband is important to everyone. different topic. the internet protocol transition. as we move from analog to all internet protocol networks, the capabilities of networks to everybody is -- serve people expands. it is the opportunity that is

created. but in this internet protocol transition, we need to make sure that those opportunities continue -- are preserved and tonight expand. for 100 years there has developed a values relationship, a set of values that determine the relationship between those who use networks and those who build and operate networks. those values do not disappear because the technology changes. we are going to hold a series of trials of what it means, what happens when you go all i.p. in services to consumers.

and the key to those trials is making sure that these values, what we've started to call the network compact, that these values continue. moving to a new technology does not erase old values. telehealth i know is an important issue and is something that i've personally been involved n. before -- i was telling david earlier that before the president asked me to do this job, i was chairman of the u.n. foundation's m. health aligns. and this is we were using mobile technology around the world to link those in need of medical care with those who could offer medical care. i'm a huge supporter of telehealth and the policies that are necessary to move telehealth along.

that's why i'm really excited that commissioner is leading an effort inside the agency on behalf of the agency to keep pushing these boundaries forward. and we will follow the lead in that regard. and finally, i know you had a session yesterday on stem. what we do to make sure that 21st century students get 21st century education using the tools of the 21st century which are the tools of connectivity is crucial importance to our country and countless individuals. a lot has changed with the internet since 1996 when center rockefeller fathered the e rate. that was when chairman hunt led

the charge to implement what the congress had done and if the truth be known, worked with the congress to make sure that there was this kind of new vision. but that was 1996. we need an update. let me tell you a story that an experience i had last week that visualized it all for me. i was in a middle school in oakland, california. going from classroom to classroom and watching how they use new connectivity for educational purposes. and in every classroom along the wall was a four inch conduit that had electric plugs in it and either net ports in it about every four feet. yet in that classroom, in those

classrooms students were sitting at their desks with their tablets doing various exercises. and it said to me there is e rate 1 dot o which is when the computer was over there. you we want to it. it was a special kind of a thing. now what we're dealing with is the computer that is on your desk, the computer that is an integral part of the learning experience. and one of the interesting things about this was we spent some time with the students. and i said to them, i said ok last year you didn't have computers. this year you do have computers. tell me about the difference from the computer being over

there on the wall to the computer being here. and one of the kids says to me, well, we need bigger desks. >> and i thought my goodness, what a great explanation for the transformation that is going on because the desk that used to be big enough for a tablet now needs to have a paper tablet and a computer tablet. and the kids are saying do something about the size of the desk. that's a transformational activity enabled by networks. we are dedicated to meeting the president's goal of 99% of the schools and libraries in america having at least 100 meg and going to a gig within the next five years or sooner. it will be done. [applause] that's the kind of thing that

excites me about this new job that. we are on the cusp of a new network driven future. and every one of us has an opportunity play a role in that transformation. it's a different set of issues than those we've dealt with in the past. but it's the same fight. it's a fight for equal opportunity. it's a fight for diversity of voices. it's a fight for kids' futures. and the beauty of where we are now is that we are at the early formative stages of the new network and we can have an impact on what that network is like going forward rather than having to play catchup ball later.

that is our goal and that's what i look forward to working with all of you to move forward over the next multiple years. so again, thank you very much for inviting me. it's a privilege to be here. david and julia, thank you very much. [applause] myself as a see proctor with a message for my world. i see myself as a person trying to understand myself and situate myself. the idea for the book came to me when i was giving some lectures at the u.s. air force academy in colorado springs. well, broadly minded

looking after me, having lots of chats with me, which i found interesting. liberal.e he was a i did not want to create any impression in my mind from the media that the air force academy was full of strange radical biblical fundamentalists. he told me he was a liberal. he tells me he was in favor of immigration. but, he said, when people come to this country, they should learn the native language. -- i saidthink he was i agree, everyone should learn english. saturday night at 10:00 eastern and sunday night at 9:00 on "afterwards."

have time totill wait in, read the book and join the conversation. tv.org and enter the chat room. >> did i feel prepared? yes, i did. first of all, i was not collect it. it did not make that much difference. -- i was not elected. i did know the difference between being the president wife and a vice president wife is huge. the vice president's wife can say anything. nobody cares. the minute you say one thing as the president wife, you have made the news. that was the lesson i had to learn pretty quickly. >> watch our program on first lady barbara bush on our website www.c-span.org/firstladies. or watch on saturday at 7:00 eastern. our series continues with hillary clinton. a major snowstorm working its

way through washington, the mid- atlantic and northeast closing the federal government in the nation's capital today. the house and senate out this week for their district work periods, and the state of the union is next week. political reporting likely will deliver the tea parties response to the state of the union next tuesday. our coverage of the networks include a preview programs next tuesday at 8:00 eastern. the president's speech will be at 9:00. the republican response will also be on c-span 2, with reaction from statuary hall. c-span and c-span two tuesday, january 28. last week, the president's environmental protection agency administrator gina mccarthy testified before a senate panel on the climate action plan of the administration. that plan include targeting of carbon emissions, decreasing fuel economy standards, and

engaging the international community to address climate change. california senator barbara boxer chairs the committee. the committee hearing is about three hours. good morning, everybody. i would panel to take their seats. i would ask senator udall to sit at the end. he will introduce us to a member of the second panel, but knowing his schedule, he said we would allow him to go first. we also want to note senator imhoff, one of the great members of this committee, has to run to his -- be a ranking member in his armed services committee. so he will so he's going to leave, preserve his early bird status and come back. all right. so before we can do our opening

statements, senator udall, we want you to be able to go to your next appointment so please, go right ahead. to be able to go to your next appointment so please go right ahead. >> thank you, senator boxer. good morning to the committee. i appreciate an opportunity to introduce a member of your second panel. but a man who looms large in our great state of colorado. and that's former governor bill ritter. he helped our state become a national leader in the new energy economy and in our fight to combat global warming. he was our governor from 2007 to 2011. he found really creative ways to build a bipartisan consensus around the need for our state to develop clean energy while also safeguarding our land and our air and our water. the features that make the centennial state. we're the envy of the world. he was raised on a farm.

he brought that rural perspective to questions about crafting an effective state policy on energy development. many of you have heard me talk about our strong removal of electricity standard. it's second only to california's. i helped lead that effort in 2004. we started out with the a 10% requirement. we very quickly met that requirement. governor ritter came along and he built on that accomplishment. he led the effort whereby now we're going to triple the state's use of renewable energy to 30% by 2020. along the way, he created the governor's energy office which was the first cabinet level office devoted to improving the effective use of colorado's vast energy resources. he also signed colorado's clean jobs act. which moved us in the utility front from burning of coal in our front range power plants. we reduced carbon emissions.

that national gas, it may have been from oklahoma, it may have been from louisiana. so we're truly in all of the above energy state. we're now one of the leading states because of governor ritter's great work in terms of the jobs created and money, total money invested in our growing clean energy economy. and since we're here today to talk about climate action plans, i want to add that governor ritter issued colorado's first climate action plan in 2007. it was a bold proposal. it called for a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. so what's governor ritter been doing since he left office in 2011? well, he went up to csu, our land grant college, colorado state university. he created the center for new energy economy at csu. the center promotes the growth of clean energy by working

through with leaders in government and the private sector. they're pursuing business friendly policies that create jobs and promote investment in the clean tech economy. and the center does this all the way by maintaining, through maintaining i should say, commit comment to the original land grant service commission to the people of colorado. the center is expanding the innovative and intrapentreprene. it will bring a role to the marketplace. chairman boxer and ranking member vitter, i'm really pleased. i know he's really pleased you saw fit to invite the governor here today. it's thanks to efforts like governor ritter i can say with confidence and pride that colorado has a balanced approach to energy that's truly a model

for our nation. so i know you'll enjoy hearing from governor ritter. i know he looks forward to engaging back and forth with the committee. but, again, thank you for inviting him. i appreciate the time of the committee. >> thank you so much. so we'll go to the five-minute rule now, paul. today's hearing will cover three topics. first, the president's climate action plan. which is a critical issue. we have four agencies here today to address it. senator vitter and minority members of this committee stated in their december 2013 year end report vitter and the epw republicans will continue pushing for an oversight hearing on the administration's climate agenda that includes witnesses from federal agencies. second, today's hearing will include the budget for the epa. third, we've set aside time for members of of this committee to ask about john beale a, an outrageous conman. all members were invited.

i asked many questions. senator vitter asked over 50 questions. however, senator vitter has more questions and so we are covering that subject too. the broad scope of this hearing was formally agreed to by ranking members. "the wall street journal" said in its editorial today that i am living in an epa fairy tale. for commending epa administrator mccarthy for shining a light on the actions of a rogue employee. well, that's what patrick sullivan said, the assistant inspector general. when he said about miss mccathy's role, quote, to our knowledge, the first senior person to express concerns was miss mccarthy so i stand by what i said. now let me turn to the president's climate action. in his plan released on june 2013, president obama called for action to fight climate change. so we don't condemn future generations to a planet that is beyond repair. i couldn't agree more.

because climate change is a catastrophe that is unfolding before our very eyes. the president's plan lays out a road map for action. it calls for a wide range of reasonable steps to reduce carbon pollution, grow the economy through clean energy, prepare for future impacts such as rising sea levels and storm surges. and lead global efforts to fight climate change. when the president announceped his climate change plan, many companies issued statements of support, including walmart, honeywe honeywell, dupont, dominion resources, american electric power and other business leaders. more than 500 companies such as gm, nike, mars, nestle, unilever, have stated that tackling climate change is one of america's greatest economic opportunities in the 21st century. in addition to many of the nation's largest companies, the american people have weighed in on the need to address this

growing threat. and they want action now. a poll found that 81% of americans think climate change will be a serious problem if nothing is done to reduce it. 75% of americans say that the u.s. should take action on climate change, even if other nations do less. that polls found that americans overwhelmingly support clean energy solutions like generating electricity from solar or wind. here's the interesting thing about people. they all say this. the only place we have a particular divide is right here in the congress. well, i'm encouraged that significant action to address climate change is already under way. including establishing limits on carbon pollution from cars and trucks. the obama administration is also working on carbon pollution

limits for new and existing power plants. together, these efforts address the nation's two largest sources of carbon pollution. now, a new peer reviewed study in the journal nature finds unless we can control carbon pollution, the most severe predictions by sicientists will occur by the end of the century. resulting in the most significant and dangerous impacts from climate change. an increase of more than 7 degrees fahrenheit by 2100. in my home state of california, scientists have been telling us for years what would happen, for years. and they're right on target. years ago, they said, they'll be substantially higher temperatures, droughts, floods, extreme weather, extreme rising sea levels. and it is happening. future generations are going to look back at this moment and judge each of us, each of us, by whether we started to act on

this issue. i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses who are leading efforts to reduce carbon emission. i will pledge to you that i will use every tool at my disposal to ensure that your work will be done. and the reason is, it's a moral obligation. it's good for the economy. and it's good for human health. thank you very much and i'd ask my ranking member to address us at this time. >> thank you, chairman boxer, for calling told's hearing on the president's climate action plan. it's long overdue quite frankly. in 2013, the committee failed to hold an epa budget hearing and held only one climate hearing, which excluded all federal government witnesses. today's one hearing comes sev months after the announcement of the biggest regulatory avalanche in u.s. history. the president's climate action plan. this avalanche of regulatory actions will begin in 2014 and i

believe will further frustrate our already struggling economy. panel a fraction of the jobs commif economists have hoped for were created in december. when president obama announced his climate action plan, it was clear to me he didn't want his supporters to engage in straight economic arguments, overpromise on the impacts taking action will have, orb debate the validity of the claim that the science is already settled. in fact, there are white house talking points to that effect. however, these are topics that must be discussed. now, while the current epa administrator argues the plan is part of an overall strategy positioning the u.s. for leadership in international discussions, the predecessor clearly argued such action would have no impact without international participation first. the administration is moving

forward with a domestic agenda that will clearly damage our ability to utilize our abundant energy resources and to support the growth of manufacturing jobs. i'm afraid these policies just show the international community three things. how to undermine chances of economic recovery and growth. how to achieve the lowest workforce participation rate since the carter administration. and how to increase energy prices by denying the ability to utilize all energy resources. while these policies were squarely rejected by congress in 2009, since then, president has simply sought to legislate them. president obama promised his administration would be the most transparent in history. however, his record, including here, reflects a determined effort to do the opposite. i think the social cost of

carbon is a perfect example on point. since last june, a number of my republican colleagues joined me in asking the administration to provide details on those social costs of carbon estimates which were developed in a black box and are used regularly by multiple federal agencies to justify costly regulations. the first confirmation of even participation in these closed door meetings was acknowledged at a november epw hearing by epa's director of atmospheric programs. she committed to providing further detailed information to the committee. and we got a short, terse, very superficial response to our detailed question this morning. i think that says it all. afterwards, the administration gave in to pressure from congress and the public and announced the estimates would be

noticed in the federal register and open to comment. if they're still being utilized in many ways across the federal government in rule makings. includes a role for almost every federal entity. the epa is clearly at the core. i'm very concerned that the epa waited over three months to publish a second try at propos d ed greenhouse gas standards for power plants. i'm enmore concerned that i believe these roles are still contrary to federal law. i think the epa's delay is designed to postpone during an election year and give more time for excuses about why they're taking action beyond the scope of their legal authority. so, in summary, i continue to be really concerned that the president's climate action plan has deeply flawed legal justifications and perceived

theoretical benefits. i believe it undermines our economic recovery. threatens to keep off limits our energy abundance and manufacturing renaissance. ex-pa nen chully increases federal bureaucracy and red tape. and most tragically, hurts those who can least afford it. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. senator cardin. >> madam chair, thank you very much for your extraordinary leadership on these issues during very challenging times. i thank you for holding fast on science. because the science is clear. atmospheric science 101 teaches us that carbon based gases in the atmosphere are what keeps the plant warm and inhabitable. naturally help regulate the atmosphere by absorbing carbon. since the industrial revolution, levels of carbon in the atmosphere have been steadily increasing and the reduction of

forest acres around the world have compounded these increases in carbon pollution admission, by reducing nature's carbon sequestration capacity. therefore, increased level also of carbon gases in the atmosphere led to more heat being trapped which is changing the earth's climate. we are accelerating by human activities the carbon emissionings. it is having catastrophic impact. we have to do something about it. these are scientific facts. there isn't any debate in the scientific community on these facts. neither is any debate among political leaders in any other developed, nor many developing countries. because unlike in the united states congress, facts of climate change are accepted. i urge my colleagues to think about how future generations will look back on our political squabbling and inaction to enact meaningful policies.

after all, it will be our grandchildren and their children, not us, living in the world we leave them. the effects of climate change can be seen around the world. across the united states. and in my home state of maryland. scientists monitoring migrating patterns of fish and birds are seeing changes in these patterns as meteorological seasons are changing. in some instance, the changes in certain wildlife species, particularly cold weather and cold water adapted species are changing. while the ranges of pest species like bark beetles are expanding due to milder winters. changing waters in the chesapeake bay will have an impact on oyster populations which threaten the livelihood of maryland's watermen who make their livelihood off the seafood of the bay. climate change is directly affecting human population around the globe. this raises, rises concerns about climate refugees who have lost their communities to sea

level rise and other catastrophic weather events in the decades to come. in my own statement of maryland, i can point to the people who live on smith island. they see their island being consumed by sea level rises. i'm disappointed the politics prevents congress from enacting legislation to address the causes and effects of climate change. able to rise above the squabbles of congress to take bold action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. grow our nation's renewable energy sources. and take critical steps to adapt the steps of climate change. epa has reduced u.s. vehicle fleet emissions through improved cafe standards by setting ambitious yet achievable goals for fuel efficiency. the president's announcement in 2011 to raise cafe standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 in some of the world's ambitious

policies in the world. demonstrate how the epa and industry can work together to achieve what's necessary to protect public health and environment. i might point out this is going to help our economy. efficiencies in energy brings about -- creates jobs. clean energy creates jobs. president obama's epa has also taken bold -- necessary step towards regulating carbon pollution. by using existing authority under the clean air act to propose the first limits in carbon emissions for u.s. power generated sector. all of this is helping. the obama administration has executed successful programs generating clean energy and american jobs, reducing our reliance on foreign oil, boltering our national security and protecting health and the environment. we should help. instead, what we see particularly coming over from the house of representatives proposals that would block this progress. fortunately, we have blocked, we

have stopped that in the senate. but we should adopt an energy policy that will help the nation become energy independent for our national security and also help our environmental future. >> thank you very much, senator. >> thank you, madam chairman for holding this important hearing on the president's climate action plan. i share many of the concerns outlined by my colleagues on this panel and welcome this opportunity to hear from the federal officials assembled on the first panel who have and will continue to generate the president's core policies on climate change. many of my concerns with the president's current action plan stems from issues we've wrestled with on this administration in the past. for instance, the environmental protection agency has, without providing for public comment or peer review adjusted upwards the social cost of carbon to modify the accounting for benefits claims from regulatory actions.

moreover, proposed regulations of greenhouse gases from new and existing sources are likely to cripple numerous large-scale manufacturing and energy projects across the nation. creating an environment in which foreign countries will become far more attractive for future environment, potentially undermining our economy again. in another instance, the treasury department obstructed multiple transparency requests for more than nine months regarding internal work on the development of a carbon tax. as well as sources of funding for international climate commitments that were negotiated behind closed doors. we can all agree that affordable energy is a critical component of having a healthy and robust economy in the united states. and we're fortunate to have tremendous energy resources here at home. as such, i'm concerned that the administration's proposals threaten to undermine an important sector of the economy and the industries and jobs it supports in the name of modest

environmental gains. i'm concerned that the views of those most likely to be negatively impacted by the new epa regulations have not been appropriately considered. protecting and improving our natural environment is a goal shared by many. but there is strong disagreement about how to achieve these goals. in general, the best policies for addressing climate change are grounded in three basic principles. sound, peer reviewed science, protection of our quality of life and policies that promise the greatest benefit to both the environment and the people without harming our economy. the recent climate change proposals issued by president obama, however, will have severe economic consequences and likely yield immeasurable environmental benefits if fully implemented. they would undermine the utilization of our own

traditional energy and increase the cost of electricity for consumers. rather, we must utilize an all of the above approach. which should include a robust expansion of nuclear energy production. hydroelectric power and other promising renewable and emissions reducing technologies. by expanding and reducing our energy portfolio, we can reduce risks to the environment. provide a strong domestic energy sector. and increase our energy security. i support legislative solutions that preserve and enhance our natural environment. however, i'm deeply concerned that unilateral epa regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is already imposing major burdens on our economy without resulting in commensurate environmental benefits. i agree on the need for continued research in the field for climate science in order to gain the necessary knowledge needed to implement effective policies. the issue is fraught with

significant environmental and economic consequences. and it's essential that we get it right. as such, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, particularly dr. judith curry and her work at the georgia institute of technology. again, thank you madam chairman for holding this hearing. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. >> thank you so much, senator. senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much, madam chair. just briefly, welcome our witnesses to this chamber. one in which reality is so often suspended. one in which science is so often twisted and mocked. and one in which the power of special interests to manipulate american democracy is often so nakedly revealed. my belief is that the propaganda

machine behind the climate denial effort will go down in history as one of our great american scandals. like tea pot dome. or watergate for that matter. most americans see through it. major american organizations. everything from coke and pepsi to ford and gm to walmart and nike and apple. can go on and on through the corporate community. outside the corporate community, you can go from the joint chiefs of staff to the u.s. conference of catholic bishops to the garden clubs of america. over and over again, organization after organization, accept the science, accept the re reality. frankly, farmers and fishermen are starting to see it happen. ask the ski mountains of utah. so i simply urge you all while you are here to keep the faith. keep faith with reality.

keep faith with truth. keep faith with science. armor yourselves against the slings and arrows of the deniers and the polluters machine and do your duty. i ask this particularly on behalf of my home state rhode island. which is a coastal state. which is at the front line of the undeniable effects of climate change. our sea levels are rising. it's not complicated. you measure that with a yard stick more or less. our oceans are warming. not complicated. you measure that with thermomet thermometers. we know that our oceans are getting more acidic. everybody with an aquarium can take a litmus test. this is not complicated. and it is affecting our people. so bear that in mind. do your duty. and thank you. i ask that the remainder of my statement be put in the record. >> without objection, it will be done. senator sessions.

you are next, followed by senator brasso. >> well, senator brasso was here before i came. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. last week was the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. the war began when president lyndon johnson visited with tom fletcher and his family on the front porch in martin county, kentucky. npr did a story on this recently. they said at the time the poverty rate in this coal mining area was more than 60%. johnson visited the fletchers on the porch of their home, a small wooden structure with fake brick siding. this is from the npr story. the study went on to say the photographers took what would become one of the iconic images of the war on poverty. the president crouched down, chatting with tom fletcher about the lack of jobs flash forward to today. latest numbers for 2011. 38.6% of the population of

martin county is in poverty. npr stated this is twice the national average. 47% of children in that county are in poverty. npr went on to say today many people here rely on government aid. in fact, it's the largest source of income in the county. they say people say that it has helped to reduce hung, improve health, health care, give young families a boost, especially at a time, npr said, when coal mining jobs, let me repeat, when coal mining jobs are disappearing by the hundreds. now, this is national public radio. not known as a conservative outfit that champions coal. those are the ones saying that. the actions of this administration's epa to wipe out coal and eventually natural gas is costing thousands of jobs and it's driving up energy costs for many of the most vulnerable people in this country. i can only conclude that epa is

on the wrong side of poverty. in fact, epa is on the tip of the spear. like martin county, kentucky. like campbell county in my home state of wyoming. belmont county in ohio. back to the very days before lyndon johnson's original declaration. when you wipe out the jobs in these communities and you drive up electricity costs, you create poverty. period. folks back in those counties wonder why the epa is making these decisions that deliberately hurt them. the associated press shed some light on this with an article written on january 10th of this year. just six days ago. the article demonstrates that the epa has been colluding with the sierra club and their beyond coal campaign to deliberately draft a rule that will prevent new coal fired power plants from being built. according to the associated press article, e-mails between

the sierra club and the epa produced through a freedom of information act lawsuit show the green group and senior officials at the nation's top environmental enforcer met and corresponded frequently about the agency's work on cool regulations. the article goes on to say that the epa has repeatedly said the regulations on coal fired plants will not be a death blow to the industry. however, the agency was working closely behind the scenes with the sierra club, an environmental organization that was pushing the agency to adapt standards that would be impossible for power plants to meet. many of the e-mails are between the head of the sierra club's beyond coal campaign and the epa's michael bare jon, both ine office at the time. new e-mails obtained from the freedom of information act, e-mails show more coordination between the epa and extremist

environmental groups. the reports stated e-mails show the epa used official events to help environmental groups gather signatures for petitions on agency rule making. incorporated advanced copies of letters into official statements by the agency and worked with these environmental groups to publicly pressure executives of at least one energy company. madam chairman, i cannot believe that these are the first instances of this type of collusion in this administration's epa. it is clear that this epa and this administration has an agenda. and that agenda is hurting jobs. the agenda is raising energy costs. and the agenda is making poverty worse in struggling communities around this country. the message to energy producing communities is clear. if you like your job, your community and your electricity bill, you can't keep it.

thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. place in the record an article entitled, the future of coal. despite the gas boom, coal is dead. it goes on to talk about how over the 20 years employment is down because when people are productive, production is up. the news today that the third quarter gdp went up 4.1% compared to the last quarter of george w. bush where gdp went down 3.8%. and that was the time that the administration then was arguing that they couldn't do anything about greenhouse gases. that it wasn't actually in the clean air act. so i think we really need to balance -- to balance this out. and now we're going to go to senator. >> thank you, madam chair. you see the assault of carbon

pollution on our natural resources. we can take and start with farming. we've had three worst ever droughts in the basin in a 13-year period. based on the snow pack this year, we may well have a fourth this coming summer. devastating a key agricultural part of our state. or if we turn to fishing, we have streams that are smaller and warmer, affecting our trout and our salmon. a lot of folks certainly appreciate having a vital or -- streams with vitality, if you will, and do not appreciate this assault of carbon pollution on our fishing. if we turn to our sea life off the coast, we are having trouble with oyster seed, the baby oysters distributed throughout the oyster industry. and they're having trouble because there's more acid in the ocean. why? because of the carbon pollution. carbon pollution assaulting our natural resource base.

if we turn to our forests, the concern is even more evidence. we have pine beetle infestations that are out of control because we don't have the cold snaps cold enough and long enough to kill them off in the winter. we have large red zones that i've taken tours from the air in, that you see red trees as far as the eye can see, as a result. and we have forest fire, the worst ever in 100 years, summer before last, and year after year, with dryer forests, more lightning strikes, more devastation. and part of that certainly, a piece of it, has to do with forest health. which is why i'm lobbying the administration. a lot of it has to do with these changing patterns. in fact, the department of energy has a early version of their study from los alamos national laboratories that says the western forests will be largely wiped out by the year 2100 with the combination of forest fires and beetle

devastation. for the people of oregon, in our rural areas, who see this devastating attack of carbon pollution affecting their fishing and farming and their forestry, we need to stand up for rural america. we need to stand up for this planet. i look forward to your comments. thank you. it would be okay with me, madam chair. we have the armed services hearing at the same time. as you well know, senator sessions. on multiple occasions, most recently on may 30th of 30th of year president obama has said, and this is a quote he's used several times. he says the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago and that climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago. both statements are false and through letters to you, and i

appreciate very much the quick response i got from you, ms. mccarthy, and on the record of this committee, we've asked the epa to provide the data backing up these two statements, the two statements made by the president, but they didn't have the data and refers us to the unippc, the enter governmental -- and their scientists, apparently the epa thought they were the source of this. we went there and they had nothing to back it up. apparently the president made that up. i think it's very important. because when you get statements that are made that are supposed to be based on logic and on truth, you have to check them out. last week's record cold temperature brought global warming debate back to the public's attention. that's only important to the extent that it's bringing more awareness to the uncertainty of the science around the debate. when you go back and look at the temperature projections from climate models and compare them to actual temperatures, two

things are readily evident. first, temperatures have flat lined over the last 15 years, and secondly, an average of over 100 climate models from the last decade show that the scientific community did not predict this would happen. to my knowledge, not a single climate model ever predicted that a pause in global warming would ever occur. senator sessions is going to go deeper into this. the truth completely contradicts the president's statement and begs the question as to why he and the epa not only continue to deny the truth but why it has raced to stop this information from disseminating into scientific record. what i'm referring to is the administration's effort with other nations to lobby the ipcc to back up the president's statement in the most recent report. and while i did not think the ipcc explanation was sufficient, i have to at least give them

credit for recognizing the facts for what they are and that the hiatus has occurred and does exist, is existing today. i know the administration and i will never agree on the science of global warming, but we can set aside for now and focus on perhaps the more alarming issue, the politics of the epa's regulations. there's a chart -- do you have the chart up here now? in october of 2012 when i was ranking member of this committee i released a report highlighting the administration's systematic actions to deny finalization of costly environmental regulations until after the 2012 presidential election. whether it was the farm dust rule or the ozone standards, the president punted regulation after regulation until after the election to minimize the influence this would have on voters, and again it appears he's doing exactly the same

thing for the first round of greenhouse gas regulations for the construction of new power plants. as we know, this is because under the clean air act -- and this is significant -- new rules for power plants must be finalized within one year of the proposal's publication in the federal register or the proposed rule is invalidated. this is important because after announcing the climate action plan, the president ordered the epa to issue a new proposal by no later than september 20th of 2013. now, the epa proposed a new rule on september 20th, but it didn't publish the federal register to after january 9th, 2014. now, had the epa published the rule on the federal register on the same day proposed on september 20th, it would have been forced to finalize the rule by september 20, 2014, which is about six weeks prior to the 2014 elections. but because the agency delayed

the publication until last week, the epa will not be required to finalize the rule until eight weeks after the election. this reveals an astonishing double standard on one hand the president says we don't have time to delay action on global warming. he says we must act before it's too late. but on the other hand his actions show it is okay to wait to finalize rules that will harm the economy until after the elections so they won't have an impact on the vulnerable candidates that might be damaged by this. this hypocrisy reveals the administration is fully aware that the epa's greenhouse gas regulations will put a drag on the economy. study after study has shown that greenhouse gas regulations will cost the economy between $300 and $400 billion a year. if we remember, the predecessor of ms. mccarthy had said before this committee that, even if we did pass these, it wouldn't have an effect of reducing greenhouse

gases worldwide because it would only affect the united states. let me say to ms. mccarthy, thank you very much for your very kind condolences over the problem we had. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you so much, senator inhofe. and we turn to -- let's see. who is next? senator booker. >> first of all, i want to say thank you to the ranking member and to the chairwoman for this opportunity. this is my first hearing on this committee. it is a privilege and honor to be here, especially with committed activists on both sides of the aisle who have a passionate concern for our country. it's an honor to be here as i begin my senate career. chairwoman, it was a long time ago that i was the mayor of new jersey's largest city. that's back in october. what frustrated me is i am a guy who believes very strongly in the power of markets, in the power of private enterprise and

industry to help poor communities, creating jobs, creating economic activity, lifting people up. that's the idea of this country. but what i get frustrated with about being a mayor, having been a mayor, i look at the landscape of my city and frankly the landscape of the state of new jersey is that we have it backwards in our history about what it means to do private enterprise. all over newark and new jersey is the population as a whole paying the cost of corporations who did not internalize their pollution. think about this right now. when i was mayor of newark, we spent -- the government had to spend and there were federal dollars, cleaning up browns fields where corporations of past years, decades and centuries ago poisoned our ground just to try to get it ready for economic opportunity.

in newark had an incredible river, the passaic river running through newark and new jersey that is so polluted right now, that not only will it cost this federal government as well as the state government as well as past polluters, trying to chase them down in legal fees and legal costs, millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to ever get that river cleaned up enough, but it also killed entire industries. everywhere around my state dozens and dozens of super fund sites that we are paying for as a population -- i am all for the power of markets. but this idea that we are privatizing profits and socializing costs has got to stop. and the pain and suffering of especially poor populations is something that you cannot put a

price tag on. what would it mean for people in america to live in a place where you can't plant in your ground to grow vegetables in your back yards? we did urban agriculture in my city, acres of it, and we could not go into the ground. we had to put the soil on top. who is paying that cost? what does it mean in a city when you're separated from your air, with epidemic as asthma rates. what does it mean when people are separated from their water where they can't even go swim? who is calculating those costs? i'm happy that the federal government has caught up to the polluters and began to put the regulations in place. i'm telling you right now they're too late. so much land that should be developed with economic activity can't be touched. we have an agent orange site in newark, new jersey, that's

capped over. here we are today at another verge of being too late. poor people who desperately need economic opportunity are denied that in communities all over new jersey. look, when the temperatures rises on our planet, please know that cities like newark, new jersey, are many degrees higher because their lack personal able surfaces, tree canopy is not there and they're suffering as a result. these cannot be calculated. these negative extra navlts cannot be calculated. what i'm simply saying is i cannot stand by and allow the continued socialization of costs and allow those who are doing the polluting not to be held accountable for factoring those costs into their business. the epidemic asthma rates that's causing a generation of children to miss school -- talk too

teachers in urban areas, not just in new jersey, and see what asthma does to undermine the educations of children and, therefore, undermine their future economic viability, contribution, success that drives the economy, you understand the peril we're in. i end with simple words of martin luther king, a hero to republicans and democrats. he says we're now faced with the fact -- it seems that we want to ignore many facts in our day and age. he says, we are now faced with facts, my friends, that tomorrow is today. we are confronted with the fierce urgency of right now in this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is no such thing as being too late. we cannot afford to be too late and terry away in needless and senseless discussions that undermine our ability to act and make people who put these pollutants into our air take

responsibilities for the costs that they take. i do believe that the problem, as king said, is not the vitriolic words and violent actions of bad people, it's the appalling silence and inaction of good people. we are good people. i hope we can act on this urgent problem. thank you. >> thank you for that eloquence. we turn to senator sessions. >> thank you. it's a fair question to ask this morning, what is right and what is wrong with the president's climate agenda? that's what we're paid to do is try to do the right thing for america and wrestle through these issues. but right first. i've said repeatedly it seems logical that greenhouse gas increases could, all things being equal, result in a warming effect in our atmosphere. scientists have told us that. it's an important scientific question and there are smart justifiable steps that can be taken. for example, i've supported funding climate research, research into potential new

technologies, cleaner sources of energy, common sense ways to promote energy conservation and efforts to expand nuke yar power, the most significant, a mission-free energy source in the world i would suggest. i've supported in the past ethanol, solar and other renewables and gas mileage rules, quaf fay standards. the truth is predictions of warming simply have not occurred at the rate the experts have predicted. this rush to force billions more dollars of cost on this economy, thousands of more people laid off based on predictions of that are not panning out deserves analysis. there is common ground that we can reach, things we can do together, and there are certain things that i oppose and do not believe can be justified. what's wrong with the president's plan? i'd suggest four concerns, one. the president's plan lacks

balance between costs and benefits. this administration primarily through the epa is imposing a massive bureaucratic expensive plan that threatens to kill thousands of jobs, increase energy costs for american families. it will hammer middle class working families and make our economy less competitive. last month the economy added just 74,000 jobs. for every one job added, nearly five left the workforce. that's not good. today we have the lowest workplace participation rate in 36 years. we still have fewer jobs today than in 2008, and the president's climate agenda is hindering our economic recovery. look at the thousands of jobs awaiting approval on the keystone pipeline which is being blocked. as significantly the amount taxpayers are being asked to pay for this agenda is out of balance. a recent report by the crrs

found that direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion between 2008 and 2013. 18 agencies involved. for this amount the taxpayer should expect significant benefits, yet the facts show that the agenda -- if the agenda is adopted in its entirety and all these goals are achieved in the u.s., there would still be no measurable difference in the global temperatures, 20, 50 or 100 years from now. what else is wrong with the climate agenda of the presidents? it empowers federal bureaucrats to regulate in ways that congress never authorized. i reject the notion that the 1970 clean air act gave epa the power to force every coal fired power plant in america to capture and store carbon

dioxide. carbon dioxide was never even contemplated when the clean air act was passed. moreover, the president continues to misrepresent climate science. he repeatedly stated global temperatures are increasing more than was predicted ten years ago. i've raised that before. his claim is demonstrably false. it's as false as, if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. really worse because it misrepresents existing facts, not something that might happen in the future. as shown in this chart which was updated just a few days ago with the most recent satellite data for all of 2013, global temperatures have not increased since 1998. they just haven't. that is not consistent with the models that we've been told

correctly predict our fuf v future. even the state department in a letter to me in december of this year acknowledge, quote, recent slowdown in atmospheric warming, closed quote. they acknowledge that. but the president is still claiming it's higher than was predicted. that's not acceptable. we expect more out of the president and we expect the epa to direct and tell the president this is not accurate and to stop saying that. finally, the president's plan is doing too much too fast. americans -- scientific american justice month had an article entitled "the long slow rise of solar and wind." they cited each widespread transition from one dominant fuel to the other has taken 50 to 60 years, and there's no technical or financial reason to believe renewables will rise any faster. yet we're trying to force this beyond reason. they go into some length about

that. madam chair, thank you for having a hearing. these are important issues. we need to wrestle with it and i think we can begin that today. >> thank you so much. there is dispute about what you said, and i will put some things in the record at the end of the hearing, and i will be happy to share them with you, senator. we'll now go to senator carper. >> for years i've been working with my colleagues here in congress and administration and all kinds of stakeholder groups across the country to tackle one of the biggest challenges of our generation, and that's climate change. i believe climate change exists and we're living on borrowed time. the longer we wait to address the issue the more damaging and expensive it becomes. before the recent session we had members from both parties including myself put forth legislative proposals that would grow our economy and provide for a safer climate. this was a time when our climate

change debates focused on how we would grow our economy and clean our environment. it's not a novel idea in the 1970s and 1990s, republican presidents and majority of members on both sides of the aisle supported, as you'll recall, the clean air act and the clean air act amendments of 1990. these clean air protections protected our health but allowed our economy to grow exponentially. unfortunately in recent years we've seen a shift in the debate and are unable to find none ground on climate legislation. today our climate change debates are focused on science instead of solutions. our debates focus on back sliding current clean air laws instead of improving them. we're back to debating whether we can have a robust economy or clean environment. history has shown this is a false choice. as congress fights over what to do our communities are feeling the first tastes of the harmful effects through record droughts and storms. coastal communities like those in my own state of delaware, vulnerable as oceans slowly rise and more extreme storms like

super storm stan difficult hit our coasts. these climate impacts are costing our country not just in lives impacted but in true economic costs. in fact, for the first time in history the government accountability office last year listed climate change as one of the biggest fiscal risks facing our country in the annual high risk reports of the gao. federal emergency management agency alone obligated over $80 billion in federal assistance for disasters declared in disasters through 2004 and 2011. despite the warnings and reality, congress remains gridlocked over this issue, over our impacted communities, our children and the rest of the world await our leadership. i don't think the world can wait much longer. that's why i welcome the president's comprehensive climate action plan. i think it's a big step and a big look forward to hearing today what progress we've made to date and what work remains.

at the end of the day, i still believe the best path forward to combat climate change is through legislation. i hope in the near future members of both parties as well as leaders in the private sector and other stakeholders will decide to come together on common sense environmental protections that are good for our climate, our health and our economy. the last thing i'd say, if i could, administrator mccarthy and i were together on monday of this week in detroit where gm won car of the year, truck of the year, international competition against the best in the world. we also saw unveiled a new updated f-150 truck, the top selling vehicle in america, the ford f-150. they had taken 700 pounds out of the weight of the vehicle, madam chair, 700 pounds. the epa mileage of that truck, believe it or not, highway is 30 miles per hour. 30 miles per hour for an f-150, who'd of thunk it?

i saw internal come bus eun engines using turbo chargers from honeywell and other americans companies getting 40, 50 miles per gallon. saw clean diesel engine that's getting like 60-some miles per gallon, i think it was a volkswagen jetta and i think a mazda product getting 70 miles per gallon. they're working and spending money on fuel cells and on that particular approach to production and propulsion. a lot of good stuff is happening. a lot of good stuff is happening. part of it is because of the work we did, legislative work we did on cafe that basically said these are going to be the goals we're setting, the milestones we want to reach. by golly, we're reaching them. it's exciting and creating jobs. it cleans out the environment and reduces our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels, but actually creating a stronger economy, not a weaker economy. last thing, we have a new

chairman of gm, new president and ceo whose name is mary barra. at the ceremony that monday morning gm was announced car of the young, corvette stingray, and they had a huge crush of people around mary as she tried to leave the press conference. i shook hands with her and gave her my business card. on it i wrote "proud mary, keep on rolling" because they're rolling. they are rolling. not rolling just to make more money and provide more jobs, but also clean up our economy. >> that's the win-win i see. senator fisher? >> thank you madam chairman and ranking member for holding the hearing today. i welcome and thank the witnesses for being here as well. i'm especially pleased that we do have four witnesses here from the administration. congressional oversight, especially over epa as it rolls out rules that jeopardize the

affordability and reliability of american energy is critical. americans are very uneasy about a plan being enacted via executive fiat and with what seems to be a total disregard for the costs associated with it. owners of coal plants have announced that a total of over 55,000 megawatts of coal-fueled generating capacity will be shut down by 2025. of this total, epa regulations have been cited as a factor in the closure of over 45,000 of those megawatts. 303 coal units in 33 states. the american coalition for clean coal energy conservativively estimates these shutdowns will cost the loss of up to 17,000 jobs. in 2012 national economic research associates analyzed the impacts of several epa regulations affecting coal-fueled electricity generation. comply ans costs for the

electric sector averaged $15 billion to $15.7 billion per year. u.s. employment losses average 544,000 to 887,000 per year. given epa's recent new source performance standard proposal which hinges upon unproven carbon capture and sequestration technology, americans can only expect even higher energy prices and greater job losses. countries that have made shifts away from fossil fuels are now finding such policy positions to be untenable. "the new york times" reported last year, quote, europe faces an energy -- a crisis in energy costs. in britain climate changes and charges add 19% to the electricity prices that large manufacturers pay. steel production is down about

30%. britain, where the average annual household energy bill has doubled since 2006 is approaching a tipping point where large numbers of people decide to switch off heat permanently." the "wall street journal" reported, quote, support for the european union's climate and energy policy eroded further friday as the czech republic became the latest member to denounce subsidies for clean but costly renewable energy and pledged to double down on its use of fossil fuels. it followed poland's declaration that it would use its abundant domestic coal supplies for power generation rather than invest in costly, renewable energy facilities. spain abolished subsidies for foetable take power generation in july. the uk's power market regulator last month froze solar powered

subsidies for the rest of this year, closed quote. a head graph in "the tell grach" russell spear's european industrial massacre sparked by energy costs. quote. in the article a european commissioner warned that europe's question sayic dash for renewables was pushing electricity costs to untenable levels. likewise australia is learning tough lessons from its costly carbon tax. in the year after the carbon tax was introduced, household utility prices rose 15% and the number of unemployed workers has risen by more than 10%. meanwhile, australia's carbon dioxide emissions have actually increased and will continue to increase until 2043 according to their government. i would urge us to heed these lessons and proceed with caution before needlessly damaging our economy and adding to the burdens of our citizens.

thank you, madam chair, and i look forward to today's testimony and questions. >> thank you, senator fisher. senator boozman. >> thank you, madam chair. again, thank you for holding the hearing. i'm glad that we're reviewing the president's climate change -- president's climate regulation plan. oversight is a good thing and we appreciate you all being here. in fact, we need to have you up here more often discussing not only these issues, but these really important problems that we face as a nation. today the question is not whether greenhouse gases trap ped, they do. the question is whether current climate science can predict and adequately explain the complexity of climate change. can it do so well, do it to the point that our politicians here in washington can manipulate the earth's temperature from their desk as we speak. certainly their track record in

that regard in the past has not been very good in a number of different things. the question is whether expensive regulations would have significant impact on the global climate and whether the president's policies are worth it. sadly, this plan appears to be all pain and no gain. the president once said his climate policies would make the cost of electricity necessarily skyrocket. now he says his plans won't cost much. the president may promise that, if you like affordable energy, you can keep affordable energy, but like his other promises, we know that's simply not true. we hear many claims, but the actual climate is not doing what the models pre dipthed. as one of our witnesses said last year, the models have not been successfully field tested for predicting climate change

and so far they're record rate should preclude their use from predicting future climate change. so what does all this mean? let me explain it in my terms. i'm an opt tom tryst. my brother was an ophthalmologist. we had an eye clinic. when a patient's symptoms were complicated or unclear, we never pretended to be certain about a diagnosis. instead, we would take a scientific approach and be thoughtful, ask questions, investigate. we were honest with our patients. we would not prescribe a risky procedure if we were uncertain whether we would do more harm than good. climate change is similar. there's uncertainty. we see symptoms, but they's strong contradictory evidence, some evidence that's missions have some impact on the climate but we don't know how much. beyond that the consensus breaks down. so the diagnosis is unclear. the president's climate

regulations are a series of risky procedures with potentially harmful consequences to treat a possible problem that we don't actually understand. so the scientific approach despite what's being said and being actually done, the actual scientific process is to be thoughtful, ask questions and investigate. sadly, those who raise legitimate questions are portrayed as, quote, anti science. there's nothing wrong with asking questions. political science are not science referees, cutting off debate when it suits one side. no political party has a mon opinionly on the facts. when reviewing proposed rules we must be honest about both the

benefits and the costs. sadly, the administration recently disregarded well-established omb cost benefit guidelines to generate an increased social cost of carbon. in other words, they broke the rules to make emissions look more costly. they cooked the books to meet their needs. instead of creating climate millionaires who benefit from carbon trading schemes and regulations, let's remember that pain falls hardest on low income families. these rules will drive costs hurting american workers and creating foreign factories that emit far more than we would save. this can't pass congress and i understand the temptation to ignore our systems of checks and balances. pretend the constitution doesn't exist and implement whatever plans the president would like. but what's now -- that's not how representative democracy works. the rest of the world is retreating as we heard earlier.

instead let's find common ground in all the above energy. we'll continue to reduce carbon emissions, newer lar power can produce vast quantities of energy. new innovations offer great promise. in short, regardless of whoever's views, we can work together to reduce emissions without this job killing climate plan. let's find that common ground. i very much look forward to your testimony, thanks. >> thank you so much, senator. last but not least, senator wicker. >> thank you, madam chairman and thank you to members of both panels. it's about to be your turn. in federalist number 47 james madison stated there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body of the magistrate. i fear members of our current administration are anointing themselves as both legislators

and administrators with this climate action plan, and i hope we have a dialogue about that today and in the coming weeks. i also hope we have a reasonable dying log as senator boozman suggested on the science, on different views on the matter of climate science. i hope we can discuss the various views in the room and in this country with respect to what is called for in regard to global science is a comprehensive dialogue. already we've heard it suggested by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle that to question the science of climate science is -- amounts to scandal. i hope we can avoid that. this morning i hope we're able to engage in a productive exchange of our concerns about

the president's plan and about executive over reach and this agenda's affect on jobs. i think we should be able to talk openly about climate science issues such as the link between climate change and human activity as well as the challenges of making long-term climate predictions based on models. here are facts. according to analysis by dr. john christie at the earth science center at the university of alabama huntsville, predictions maepd by 73 computer models cited by the united nation's latest intergovernmental panel on climate change, ipcc, fifth assessment report, do not accurately predict the lack of temperature rise as seen in the past 17 years. in other words, the ipc models have been inaccurate. the past 15 years, according to world temperatures -- recorded

world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of ipcc claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007. further, the 2007 ipcc report included predictions of a decline in antarctic sea ice, but the latest document does not explain why this year it is at a record high. antarctic sea ice is at a record high. in addition, the 2013 report states most models simulate a small decreasing trend in antarctic sea ice extent in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations. the reality differs from the models. the 2007 hforecasts for more intense hurricanes, after this year was one of the quieted hurricane seasons in history. this from a leading group of

international experts on climate science. a recently published article in science magazine titled "in the hot seat" says, the fact is there's little or global evident that gloeshl warming steered sandy into new jersey or made it stronger. scientists haven't tried to link climate change with particular fires. despite this knowledge, the administration has based many policy decisions on the link between specific extreme weather events and climate change as well as predictions on climate models. climate modeling is difficult by nature, and there are large degrees of uncertainty in the resulting predictions. anyone who suggests, as has been suggested in this room today, that climate science is not complicated is simply being naive. many of the president's policies

will negatively affect our constituents by preventing them from earning a living. how can we expect to assure these people that their sacrifices will benefit them in the long-term when we do not have the capacity to accurately predict regional climate changes? again, these discussions are important, and they should be had in this congress without either side being accused of engaging in scandal. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. well, it's your turn, panel. i'm sure that you were fascinated with all of our comments and mesmerized by them. now it's your turn to mesmerize us. the honorable jean mccarthy, administrator of the environmental protection agency, please. >> thanks chairman boxer, ranking member vitter, members,

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. in june of last year the president reaffirmed his commitment to reducing carbon pollution when he directed many federal agencies including the environmental protection agency to take meaningful steps to mitigate the current and future damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions and to prepare -- can you hear me -- >> sorry. i have little cold. it's going around. -- and to take meaningful steps to mitigate the current and future damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions and to prepare for the anticipated climate changes that have already been set in motion. climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. responding to this challenge is in urgent public health, safety, national security and environmental imperative that prengts both an economic challenge and economic opportunity. both the economy and the environment must provide for current and future generations. we can and must embrace cutting

carbon pollution as a spark for business innovation, job creation, clean energy and broad economic growth. the united states' success over the past 40 years makes clear that environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand. the president's climate action plan directs federal agencies to address climate change using existing executive authorities. the plan has three pillars, cutting carbon pollution in america, preparing the country for the impacts of climate change and leading international efforts to combat global climate change. epa plays a critical role in implementing the plan's first pillar which is cutting carbon pollution. over the past four years the epa has begun to address this task under the clean air act. in 2009, epa and the national highway traffic safety administration, along with the auto industry, the uaw and other stakeholders work together to

set greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for modern year light duty vehicles 2012 to 2025. over the life of these vehicles, the standards will save an estimated $1.7 trillion for consumers and businesses and cut america's oil consumption by 12 billion barrel while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6 million metric tons. the president asked epa to work with states, utilities and other key stakeholders to develop plans to reduce carbon pollution from future and existing power plants. in march 2012 the epa first proposed carbon standards for future power plants. after receiving over 2.5 million comments, we made the decision to issue a new proposal based on this input and updated information. in september 2013, the epa announced its new proposal. the proposed standards would establish the first uniform national limits on carbon

pollution from future power plants. they do not apply to existing power plants. the proposal set separate ral national limits for new natural gas fired turbines and coal fired units. the rule provides flexibility by the operators of these units by allowing them to average emissions over multiple years to meet a somewhat tighter standards. the standards reflect the demonstrated performance of efficient lower carbon technologies that are currenta used today. we look forward to row best engagement on that proposal. and for existing power plants, we're engaged in an outreach to a broad group of stakeholders who can inform the development of the proposed guidelines which we expect to issue in june of this year. these guidelines will provide guidance to states which have the primary role in developing and implementing plans to address carbon pollution from

the existing plants in their states. when we issue the proposed guidelines, a more formal public process will begin providing an additional opportunity for stakeholders and the general public to provide input. the climate action plan also calls for the development of a comprehensive interagency strategy to address issues of methane, to reduce emissions of hfcs. epa is working on these aspects of the president's plan as well. the president's plan also calls for a broad array of actions to prepare for the impacts of climate change. epa is incorporating research on climate impacts into the implementation of our existing programs and developing information and tools to help decision makers better understand these impacts. epa is also working closely with our federal agency counterparts on several other aspects of building our national resilience. working with the state

department, epa is also engaged in international discussions with our partners in other countries in reducing carbon pollution through an array of activities. in conclusion, the president's climate plan provides roadmap for federal action to "meet the press"ing challenge of climate change, promoting clean energy solutions that capitalize on american innovation and drive economic growth. epa looks forward to working with other federal agencies and all stakeholders on these critical efforts. thank you again and i look forward to an sergs your questions. >> thank you, so much, administrator mccarthy. we turn to the honorable daniel ash. >> thank you, chairman boxer, ranking member vitter and members of the committee. i want to also thank you for the chance to testify on behalf of the president's climate action plan and the u.s. fish and wildlife services role under that plan. the best science available to us today supports the conclusion that earth's climate system is

undergoing rapid and significant change, and i believe this is the greatest challenge to current and future management of our wildlife resources. i was trained as a scientist and i lead a science-driven organization. we always begin with what we know through observation. the earth's climate is changing. it's changing at an accelerating rate. average surface temperatures are increasing. ocean temperatures are rising. sea ice and glaciers are melting. sea levels are rising. oceans are acid phiing, plants are flowering earlier. birds are migrating sooner. in general wildlife species distributions are shifting northward and higher in elevation. all of these observed changes are consistent with observations in the rise of greenhouse gas emissions and with the conclusion that human emissions of those gases are driving change in the earth's climate

system. it leads to the conclusion that we, as responsible wildlife managers must anticipate that large scale ecological disruption will be an increasing aspect of the daily challenges that we face in doing our jobs. we must prepare or be unprepared to deal with the consequences. the president's climate action plan is compelling and helping us to prepare. it asks us to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our nation for the impacts of changing climate and help the world understand and respond to the challenge as well. it's really asking us to be the leaders that we're supposed to be. in decades past, the u.s. fish and wildlife service has been a leader in recognizing and helping prepare the nation to deal with great environmental challenges. market shooting and devastation of migratory birds,

indiscriminate use of industrial pesticides like ddt, large-scale destruction of wetlands and species extinction. great leaders prepared the organization and its employees to deal with those challenges. today we see the emergence of a new and likely much greater challenge, climate change. it's our obligation to prepare our great institutions like the u.s. fish and wildlife service to meet this challenge. we cannot do this alone, and the action plan compels us to work with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local communities and the private sector and private citizens. in march of 2013, the service worked with federal and state agency partners to release the national fish, wildlife and plants climate adaptation strategy. this strategy identifies key vulnerabilities to fish, wildlife and plants and presents a unified approach to reduce the negative effects of climate

change on our wildlife heritage and on the communities and economies that depend on those resources. since it was released, the strategy has bin incorporated to guidance for their planning efforts and is the focus of legislation introduced by senatorhouse. the services embracing the challenges presented by climate change to the nation's fish and wildlife resources, we realize that addressing this challenge was a good measure of success in the long term will require commitment, resolve, compassion and creativity. we look forward to working with this committee and the congress to enhance this most important work, work that will pass on our wildlife resource heritage to future generations of americans. madam chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify and especially for your leadership on this issue. during the members' presentations today i heard many

things of interest. i heart senator whitejose do your duty. i heart senator sessions say there is common ground. i think those are both words to live by and things. >> thank you madam chairman, ranking member vitter and members of the committee. thank you, also, for the opportunity to discuss the president's climate action plan. the president believes we have an obligation to our children to reduce carbon pollution, to protect our future. the climate action plan builds on steps the administration has already taken to cut carbon pollution and strengthen our economy by supporting domestic clean energy jobs. as you heard, the plan has three pillars, cutting carbon pollution at home, preparing the nation for the impacts of climate change we can't avoid

and leading international efforts to address this global challenge. a key part of the plan is to reduce carbon pollution in the united states, and the administration is already making significant progress. in the last five years the u.s. has more than doubled renewable energy generation from wind, solar and geothermal sources and we're setting a goal to double electricity production from these sources again by 2020. we're also focusing efforts on energy efficiency. as you heard, we've established new fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards that will double the efficiency of our cars by the middle of the next decade and help families save money at the pump and also established the first ever fuel economy -- greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty trucks, buses and vans. the plan promises a second round of standards for heavy-duty trucks. the plan also sets a goal to redugs carbon pollution through

energy efficiency and standards for appliances and energy efficiency efforts in federal buildings. since august, the department of energy has proposed or finalized several energy efficiency standards for appliances and other products. when combined with other energy efficiency standards issued by the administration, they will help cut consumer electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars. we're also focused on making sure the federal government is leading by example. since 2008, federal agencies have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by almost 15%. the president recently directed agencies to consume 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, more than double the current goal. even as we work to cut carbon pollution, we also need to take action to address the impacts of climate change that can't be avoided. we know as the earth continues to warm, we can expect more

frequent extreme weather events including large storms, severe droughts and heat waves. in 2012, weather and climate disasters cause over $110 billion in damage. last summer the administration released the hurricane sandy rebuilding strategy. the strategy focuses on helping the region build to be more resilient to deal with future storms. as part of these efforts, the department of housing and urban development and its partner agencies are investing in safer and more resilient infrastructure and the federal transit administration is strengthening public transit systems affect bid the storm. these efforts can serve as a model for communities across the country. the president also signed an executive order directing agencies to help communities strengthen their resilience. they're to modernize programs to better support local preparedness, better manage our natural resources to improve resilience and to develop

information and tools to help local decision makers. executive order also established a task force of state, local and tribal elected leaders to advise the administration. their recommendations will be vital to ensure that the federal government responds to the needs and priorities of communities when addressing the impacts of climate change. finally all agencies are examining how a change in climate will affect their missions. last february, federal agencies for the first time released their climate change adaptation plans outlining strategies to reduce the vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. we also understand that our response to climate change must be global and we're committed to playing the leadership role that can support a strong international response. the administration is pursuing this through multiple channels including the united nations freem work convention on climate change as well as multilateral and bilateral initiatives

focused on tackling the drivers of green has hous gas emissions. the impacts of climate change are should erd by families and businesses across the country. for the sake of the economy and the legacy to leave our children, it's vital to address this problem head on. thank you for listening. i look forward to your questioning. >> now we turn to the honorable dan tag rin any. >> thank you. i appreciate being invited here today to testify on this important topic. last year the u.s. government accountability office cited climate change presents a significant financial risk to the federal government. according to the national climatic data center in 2012, weather and climate related events caused over $110 billion in damage and 377 deaths, the second costliest year on record. the administration is committed to reducing the damage caused

and to prepare for its long-term impacts. in june 2013 the president affirmed this commitment by requiring agencies to cut carbon pollution, lead international efforts to address global climate change. gsa is one of the many federal agencies doing its part to assist in this effort. as the owner and caretaker of federal properties, our large and diverse portfolio presents many opportunities to increase the government's energy efficiency, reduce our contribution to climate change, save millions of dollars in energy costs and to plan and implement risk management strategies. as part of the president's climate action plan, tsa is undertaking efforts to improve the efficiency of our federal buildings, identify and prepare for climate risks and is working to ensure that we share lessons learned with our partner agencies. gsa reduces energy consumption across its portfolio through a variety of means.

gsa leverages technology such as advanced metering and smart building system to uncover deeper energy savings opportunities. we also use rapid building assessments to perform sophisticated energy audits that require no on site work or new device installations. another valuable tool is energy savings performance contracts. these are public-private partnerships where the private sector provides the up front capital to make energy efficiency upgrades in a facility and is paid by the federal agency from the guaranteed energy savings under the contract. once the contract ends, the agency continues to benefit from the reduced energy costs. the president's climate action plan sets new goals on the use of renewable energy, increasing the currents goal from 7.5% to 20% by 2020. in fy 201346.1% came from renewable sources and enough renewable energy to power nearly